kudos to Ben Simoneau and wgal 8

[seanx]

in the last week or so they have investigated mayor reed, the turnpike weasels, some corrupt business owners, the harrisburg schoolboard, and a few other gov't agencies I can't remember right now......it is about time that our local news had someone like this guy.........KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK CHANNEL 8......I personally think this guy should have his own half hour investigative show

now if we can get him to follow the money trail in the local KKK, I mean, masonic and knights of columbus lodges......I'm sure he can uncover the ties to the judicial, legal, legislative monies and a bunch of corruption........by the way where the hell did muddysquirrel ever run off to with his great story???

[Mickulz]

Hahaha KKK..I am sure the black brothers who sit in lodge next to me each week would get a kick out of that....

[seanx]

....tools........

[Mickulz]

I think most would be surprised by the mix not only locally, but nationally. There are also a lot of pure black lodges in the nation.

This goes back a lot to the Southern Jurisdiction and some of the issues caused. For example, there were a lot of Catholic KKK members, but Catholicism did not get the black eye (no pun intended) that other groups (Masons, Lions, FOP) got because people were/are members of both.

To be honest, it is what it is, and will always be. It pretty much rolls off of me.

[seanx]

Prince Hall masons don't surprise me.....they get the same benefits from the society as you do........secret courts to try them for secret crimes......if you can't cut it as an individual, join a secret group of corrupt cheaters to help you out.......

[seanx]

.........you keep comparing Freemasonry to other religions......what other religions take secret oaths that promise to keep other members out of trouble for commiting crimes such as rape, pedophilia, embezzlement, etc. and then keep the "penalty" secret? what other religions have secret courts and keep the corrupt member's crimes secret? what other religions threaten to kill the members if they reveal their oaths or do the right thing against a fellow member?

trust me, I've experience the short end of the stick of these great secret court "sentences" and they are bullshit. also, isn't undermining our current legal and judicial system for a secret system of courts and jurisprudence a form of treason? Isn't it going against the fundamental principles of our Constitution and Bill of Rights?

I hope you answer these questions because occassionally you tend to gloss shit over or double-talk......like when you said it is very easy to check and find out who is a Mason and who isn't, and then about a month later you said it is near impossible to find out who is a member.......which is it? I'm not attacking you, you know that.....but you hold this wonderful fraternal organization of your's in such high esteem whereas in reality it is simply a coverup for a criminal enterprise..........you think it is moral and just to every American who isn't a member?? do I get secret trials if I do something wrong? do I get 4 or 5 chances after commiting the same crimes? hell no......and you know that most people join for the extra benefits.....don't give me the "I joined because of the great charitable works we do" or " I joined because all of my family is in it"....that's crap......the group is the first to tout all it's great charitable works but won't tell you what goes on behind closed doors or what oaths are taken (why not if it is all such peachy keen stuff)

I even had a friend say to me that it's not a big deal if a brother steals or embezzles because it's only monetary things.....I told him, yeah that's great for you to say because you weren't fucked over by one of these GAOTU dickheads and having to spend years of your lives paying them back.....or you didn't have a daughter traumatized by some Worshipful Master's offspring whipping his cock out in public for the 4th time with no punishment instead they helped him get off each and every time......I'd be proud to have it on my license plate too.......

[Mickulz]

You are again putting too much stock in this...

I will address this issue first:

"like when you said it is very easy to check and find out who is a Mason and who isn't, and then about a month later you said it is near impossible to find out who is a member"

I was speaking purely on Pa Freemasons on the finding out part. You can contact the grand lodge and they will tell you what info they have (what lodge, ect..). Globably, it is not as easy because of the differences in York Rite, Scottish Rite, and people who are neither. That is where the confusion in my statement lays, and I am sorry. I meant no double speak.

On the other parts:
Short of getting a client once because I was a mason, I have never gotten any "special" benefit. In fact, I at one point owed the IRS $45,000 and I have been paying ever cent of it back. I have owed the State of Pa $10,000 is back Sales Tax, that I have paid every cent back (well, so it will be). I have been fined $3,000 by the state for those delinquencies. I have had 3 speeding tickets. My wife got a DUI and did not get any special treatment.

If you look at the state criminal statistics there are literally THOUSANDS of people who have gotten walks on committing NUMEROUS crimes also. This is not a mason trend.

As far as the line "the group is the first to tout all it's great charitable works but won't tell you what goes on behind closed doors or what oaths are taken (why not if it is all such peachy keen stuff)".

The easiest way to describe is that first, it is the procedures and rituals that we do that make us a mason. It is not that we have some great knowledge that no one else can have, it is just how we present it. How we know a person is a mason. Like you and your knowledge of some things that go on in a lodge. How we do it key of me being able to tell if you are a mason or not, and just happen to know the same things.

I would truely question your friends ethics and his lodge if that is what they are teaching. As for the last part about the daughter. I would honestly like to know about the person who did it, and who his dad was. I would venture to guess there is a better connection outside of Masonry that helped him beat the charges. But since I am not privy to the details, I can not comment much on it.

The problem boils down to this. With 5 million members worldwide, things are bound to happen. For example, I know a lodge in Maryland where 60% of the membership are all members for F.O.P. I would think that if someone got off on a speeding ticket, it would be the F.O.P. connection and not the Mason connection.

I can not say why other people join, but I told you before why I did. My great-grandfather was someone to look up to (for me). When I think of character and pillar in the community, he comes to mind. When I started to realize that all his friends were like him, I knew I wanted to be. My family went through VERY hard times and not once did I ever seen any benefit, other than people always willing to help and people who were dependable.

I totally understand why some people feel the way they do. I has the same feelings for other groups myself, then I just realized I may not always hear the whole story. It is like when your best friend is dating someone. You rarely hear how great she is. All you hear is how she is a whore or tramp and the trouble she causes.

I do not know what else to tell you. I think I answered it all. If not, I am sure you will let me know.

And I honestly think you interpret what you have HEARD as the masonic oath incorrectly with the part about "take secret oaths that promise to keep other members out of trouble for commiting crimes such as rape, pedophilia, embezzlement, etc."

I honestly do not know what else to tell you. I would tend to think we are more "private" than secret.

I know you will not believe any of this, but I felt I would at least try a bit.

[seanx]

your answers are some of the better ones I ever get from a Mason which is why I ask you a lot of shit........so is there some sort of lodge membership book listed somewhere or would I need to call a specific lodge to find out the membership list? and what sort of reception will I get for asking?

you didn't touch on the secret court subject and whether you honestly thought it is a fair thing for those of us who are not and choose not to be brethren........

also if you do not remember I was raised Catholic but due to several factors I no longer attend the church and have discounted many of the leaders of it......I think it is basically a corrupt entity in itself with a percentage of people who truly do care but that number is dwindling......they protect their own for crimes commited and that is one of the factors why I will not be associated with it........I don't care what diocese attempts the cover up, I feel if the overall leaders do not step in and demand full prosecution (not a secret trial) from the law of the US then it will reflect on my personal morals and values for staying in it........

yeah thousands of people get off for different crimes but not in the same percentage numbers and as blatantly and braggardly as what I've witnessed and been told by Masons (your brethren like to brag my friend).......

also is it true that when you become a member of the Masons you are given an amount of money ( I was told 20 grand) to do with what you will (but they would like you to use it to start a business enterprise).......? Or is that just in certain lodges?

Damn, you must be in the bestest lodge in the country because nothing wrong goes on there.......that you know of

[seanx]

......and I've both heard and read my info from credible sources....

lastly I think you take it too personally, I am not against you just the system your organization uses. Perhaps you have the only lodge in the world that does things right and then kudos to you.....but you did say that your lodge holds secret trials, didn't you? I know you don't set them up so that gets you off the hook........but it still boggles my mind that you would associate yourself with such a group...you seem better than that

[Mickulz]

No, we do not hold trials. The only thing we do is vote on memberships and/or revoking them.

The same reason people associate themselves with other groups. PETA, Greenpeace, etc..They all have factions that have issues, but the overall membership is law abiding good citizens.

I would LOVE to have been given money when I became a mason, but sadly...I have never even heard of that happening.

Now, I will caution you that there are lodges that are not sanctioned or recognized by the grand lodges. There was huge one in Italy years ago that was an issue. They were not a legal lodge, but caused some shit and game the Italian lodges a bad name. I think it was G2 or something.

As far as getting a membership list, no it wont happen. But you can contact the grand lodge and ask for information on a person.

It is hard to explain about the privacy/secrecy but the best way I can put it is, anyone can run around and say they are a mason. They can even find out the "tells" like handshakes and such, but it is the rituals that are done behind the lodge doors that let us know who is a real brother and who is not.

As the internet grows and the 24/7 news world, so do a lot of misconception, 1/2 truths, and other things. Some of the things I read (not on here) make me laugh about it. There have been so many theories "proven" about JFK, and one of them may be right, who knows. The fact that 8 different theories are proven to be the correct one on the internet just reminds me sometimes maybe there is not so much to it. Maybe Oswald did act alone. We get caught up in wanting so much more.

The Jack the ripper case is another example. It will just always be there.

If I honestly saw something that I thought was not correct, I would address it. If it would not be changed, I would change my associations. It is hard enough to get the people in the same lodge on the same page, let alone getting all the lodges together.

I don't take is personally. It just gets frustrating trying to explain things. It is like trying to tell a blind person what the color blue looks like. Or telling a deaf person what Mozart sounds like. There are a lot of time I wish we could just let people sit in at lodge.

You are a totally cool guy (from what I know), we are just different and view things different (in some cases). I respect that. I will even let you buy me a beer sometime :-)

[seanx]

....damn, now I've got to go back through all of your posts and point out to you where you said you had secret trials or meetings to punish corrupt members........I know you did but do I feel like taking time to do that? not right now

also you are wrong about another major issue: I am NOT a totally cool guy....I am an ASSHOLE.......thank you very much (at least on this board I am ;D )

I invoke the spirit of Ben Simoneau to help us on this issue...........unga bunga..... wham!

[seanx]

....Mickulz, the truth question I wanted you to respond to involved you stating that if you ran for political office you would try you best to always tell the truth.....I questioned why you couldn't tell the TRUTH ALL THE TIME.....do it, don't try........simple concept, eh?

....and you said regarding punishment for fellow members, that there were internal decisions made and punishments handed down within the lodge........thus bypassing the normal legal proceedings............I am not going to go back through all the posts to find it, but you absolutley stated it.......if you posted incorrectly or are possibly backtracking because you might get your ass in hot water, then just say so.....I will protect you, I'm a cheetah-quick ninja...........also, I have been told the same and read the same from other credible sources, so your posting made sense............

[Mickulz]

Ok...Let me respond to the second part first.

That only pertains to LODGE issues, not legal issues. Meaning the courts may not find someone guilty or such, but we still may remove a member. This is not bypassing the legal system, this is for our internal things.

For example: A person gets caught stealing. They may cut a deal with the DA that keeps them out of jail and things off their record, but that does not mean they would still be in good standing. I am sorry if I spoke that incorrectly. It is not us trying a person in replacement of a regular legal system, it is us looking at a person to see if they are still fit for us.

For the first question I simply mean sometimes the truth is not always the best. For example if there is a rape that is committed by a Latino in the area. And I fear that releasing that fact may cause race riots or issues, I would not answer yes, if someone asked "is the suspect Latino?". See where I am coming from on that?

Did I answer both for you?

[seanx]

.....you answered both......and did an overall good job.....

I would say that more than likely you are telling the truth to the first question

the second one......how about just telling the truth always.....it works better for everyone.....I don't need you or any other politician deciding when to protect us from ourselves......you begin to climb a slippery slope of when to let the truth come out.....it should always come out, or else there are corrupt reasons........

doesn't it suck that because you are a mason, I have to weigh every single thing you post and decide if you are slanting it towards an agenda? I'm sure that I'm not the only one who feels this way............................it would especially suck if you are just being truthful and are guilty due to association (but you can't change people's firsthand experiences).......

[freddyv]

seanx said:

the second one......how about just telling the truth always.....it works better for everyone.....I don't need you or any other politician deciding when to protect us from ourselves......you begin to climb a slippery slope of when to let the truth come out.....it should always come out, or else there are corrupt reasons........

I agree with this statement 100%. The only time that it would be appropriate to withhold information would be situations like if our military is engaged in a declared war and we are planning to execute a military strike that would be compromised if the media went public with it...or if the police are searching for a murder suspect/etc. and they need to hold back one crucial piece of information to help weed out all the douche bags that have no lives and call in with phony tips.

[Mickulz]

Honestly, no it does not suck. Because that means you are looking closer at the issues. Someday people will realize that we are just like any other organization. A few bad apples out of a million. I am not concerned about what the public thinks of us or me for the most part. I state my piece and let people take it how they want.

The problem with the truth part in the actual question, is that unlike being true to oneselve elected officials (for the most part) are responsible for the whole of the people. While people like you can be trusted to say "remain calm in a tense situation", most people could not. At what point would you hold off on the truth if it saved lives? This is a HUGE dilemma for me, and maybe why I have no real desire to run for public office.

One year I was stuck with 8 people in a snowstorm in a building where the electricity went out. To see how the people changed from the first 5 hours until the 30th when we got out was staggering. My biggest regret is that someone did not step up and take control (I was 19 and the young one in the bunch). The problem was people were getting 1/2 news from the radio and such and freaking out. I guess my point is if somone would have stepped up and said "Look..we will be fine, they have people out to get us" things would have been a little more at ease (even though at the time they did not have people out for us). See what I am saying?

[freddyv]

Let's not get muddy the issue here (not to say that you are, mickulz). We, as citizens, are entitled to privacy. For some people, there is a certain "stigma" (so to speak) associated with the masons...but if you were in a NASCAR club and had secret meetings and handshakes no one would care. It is abhorrent when people hide behind secrecy to break/subvert the law. However the bill of rights ensures our right to privacy in at least several different sections, so there's nothing wrong with a little "secrecy" as far as your personal life goes.

As far as your snowstorm experience...more information, or "truth" would have actually helped you. People want to be told that everything is going to be ok. People want to believe that they are safe. But if you aren't safe, you need to know that information so you can act accordingly. Witholding that information doesn't make you any safer regardless of how it may make you feel.

If you were out in the middle of nowhere and no one even knew to look for you, it would be good to be aware of that so that you could try to figure out a way to survive and get yourself out of the situation. Knowledge is power.

I had a similar experience moving into my college dorm my freshman year. Too many people got into an elevator that I was in, and we got stuck. One guy...older, but probably middle-aged...grey and balding...was really freaking out about it. My dad and I just kind of laughed about the situation. Some people don't have good coping skills...that's not a good reason to lie to the rest of us. We don't need the government "protecting" us in our everyday lives. We're all adults, and we're all capable of taking care of ourselves.

[Mickulz]

freddyv said:

As far as your snowstorm experience...more information, or "truth" would have actually helped you. People want to be told that everything is going to be ok. People want to believe that they are safe. But if you aren't safe, you need to know that information so you can act accordingly. Witholding that information doesn't make you any safer regardless of how it may make you feel.

Actually it was the opposite. The more info came in the WORSE it got. When it went from a 3 hour prediction until we could be reached to a 10 hour, people freaked. It just got worse as the updates came in.

Just out of personal curiosity..and not looking to bash or call out...

In your experience...If you knew the line on the elevator was going to snap, would you have told everyone in that elevator?

[freddyv]

information and accurate information are two different things.

if I knew that the cable was going to snap, I would tell everyone. I wouldn't just blurt it out and incite mass panic. I would pose it more as "look...we need to figure out a way out of here immediately" as opposed to "oh no we're all gonna die!!!!!!!!!" more of a matter-of-fact approach...like this is where we're at, this is what we need to do.

now if I were a rescue worker...I wouldn't want to freak anyone out...but again I would want to clearly express the gravity of the situation and the need to act swiftly.

[freddyv]

thinking a little more about your argument...I don't think that it's an apples to apples comparison. in a rescue type situation, time is of the essence, so in that sense there isn't always opportunity for full disclosure. as far as the day-to-day operations of our government, this is hardly the case.

I see people trying to make this argument a lot (regardless of the issue at hand). generally speaking, you don't make the rule for the exception, rather you make the rule according to the overall trend, and then allow for exceptions.

in your snowed in situation...you were getting a lot of disinformation from the "media." you didn't really know the truth of the matter, and so your imaginations ran wild and it freaked you all out. this is human nature. if you truly knew the bottom line reality of the situation, you probably would've just played cards or talked about stuff until the rescuers came, instead of dwelling on where they were at and why weren't they coming.

[Mickulz]

freddyv said:

thinking a little more about your argument...I don't think that it's an apples to apples comparison. in a rescue type situation, time is of the essence, so in that sense there isn't always opportunity for full disclosure. as far as the day-to-day operations of our government, this is hardly the case.

This is why I made the comment about not always 100% truthful.

That is the grey area that gets a lot of people in trouble.

[freddyv]

I don't understand your point. I still don't see an acceptable reason for the government to lie to us.

Do you think the people on the September 11th flights would not have acted differently had they known that their hijackers had no bombs or weapons other than boxcutters and if they did nothing they would a) end up dead and b) thousands of other innocent people would end up dead?

Knowing is better than not knowing. Think about a cheating girlfriend. If you don't know, she's still cheating on you. And if you break up and never find out, it's likely to happen to you again as you wouldn't be aware of the warning signs.

Nobody said knowing might not be painful or have unwanted effects, but if you know what you're dealing with you can come to grips with it and act accordingly instead of acting under false pretenses.

[Mickulz]

Ok here is a plain example:

A nuclear missile is headed for the United States of America. It is going to wipe out the entire US, expect for Harrisburg, Pa. (yes, I know you must suspend a little belief here). Knowing that the city only has enough resources to support the people that are already living there, would you go on national television and tell people that the only safe place for anyone was the city of Harrisburg, Pa?

Now, before you jump in and say "yes" right away, think about what saying yes will do. I am also not saying there is a right or wrong answer.

If you say "yes" there is a CHANCE that people will accept it, make their peace and die.

OR

People will panic, everyone will flock to the city and chaos will ensue. The food rations, water, space, medical supplies that were figured in keeping the people of Harrisburg alive (and keeping our nation alive) begin to lessen. With panic, and loss of basic needs, there is a VERY good chance the instead of 20,000 survivors, they may be 100. Or none.

A real life version of this was WW2 and the concentration camps. After finding the first few, the medical staff realized that if the people in the camps got out and free they would eat themselves to death (over eat after being starved). So when they came upon the later camps, they actually "ignored" the camps (like they did not find them), until they knew they had the medical staff and supplies to treat them.

These are the issues I am talking about. I am not talking about things like lying about WMD, or what intelligence we did or not not get on 9/11 prior to the events. Those are all unexcusable and should be told (especially after the fact).

I am simply asking at what point does the greater good of the people out weight full disclosure? I honestly think that this is a line that each person needs to set for themselves.

I guess I am also asking if there is a difference (in your mind) between lying and full disclosure.

The 9/11 example is tricky because we really do not know what they knew. We may never know. The only thing we can relate too is the plane that went down after the first two, and the actions they took.

[freddyv]

a lie of omission is still a lie.

the decisions we make are based upon the information we have at our disposal. if you are well-informed, I would guess that you would have a better chance of making the best decision for yourself.

the truth hurts, but lies hurt more. you're going to find out eventually, and it's going to be a lot worse than if you just knew the truth in the first place.

a more likely nuclear strike scenario would go along the lines of...a specific site is targeted and there isn't time to evacuate. do you tell the people, or just allow them to be vaporized? that's a tough call, because death is imminent. but at least if you know, you can make good use of your last few moments. maybe make a phone call to say goodbye to someone you love that lives cross-country. maybe kiss your spouse or child one last time.

I still contend that knowing is better than not knowing.

[seanx]

....I get your point, Mickulz, but FAR TOO MANY times in the past, government officials and politicians have hidden things in the guise of what is in the best interest of the masses. in fact, that reasoning is used now as an excuse for hiding information from us..............agreed?

.....due to this misuse of the power of decision-making, I want full truth and let what happens, happen........I think the people will be just fine and dandy................

[Mickulz]

I totally agree. The problem is there are people who want to change it, but no one believes them. The only way to prove it is to get in there and show, and they can't get in there to prove it because no one believes them. It is like fat Bastard. He's fat because he eats. He eats because he is unhappy. He is unhappy because he is fat.

Sean, you SAY you will let happen what ever happens, but is that true? If someone in the above scenario took food from your daughters mouth because they came from out of town to save their own ass..You would be fine with it? Knowing it would not have happened if full disclosure happened?

That is why I have such a hard problem with politics. I am not sure the good side outweighs the bad side of being a politician.

[freddyv]

I find myself increasingly more wanting to get involved in politics. Really, your job is to follow the constitution. If you don't like it, go through the proper channels and attempt to amend it.

Most politicians don't get into it for the right reasons. They want power and they want to control things. That's not their job.

[Mickulz]

The first thing you need to decide is if the Constitution is "as written" or was it written by the founding fathers knowing it would have to be adapted/interpreted for the times.

That alone is one of the biggest debates.

Here is a prime examples of a part that is often debate:

Section 8
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

and

AMENDMENT XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[freddyv]

I'm not sure that I catch your drift.

I have a limited knowledge on constitutional history, but section 8 sounds like the precursor to patent law.

The 14th Amendment was for slaves, right?

Intepretation is for the Judicial Branch, no? It's good to be informed of course.

[Mickulz]

Now you are starting to see my point (and I am sure Sean will have the other side):

The Constitution trumps all other laws. So, patent law means nothing IF we wanted to enforce the Constitution strictly. The government could some in and say, we like your invention. We are holding exclusive rights to it for a while, so you can not sell it to Sony.

The 14th is about how to be a US citizen. If we take it by the word, any illegal (or person visiting the US for vacation) who happens to give birth, their child can be a citizen.

And sure, interpretation is up to the Judicial Branch, but they are appointed by by the Executive branch. See what a circle this is?